If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
British Press - friend or foe
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
We've done the press before and MMR recently too, but this article made me really angry:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,11098,650212,00.html
Basically it is saying that the government's MMR campaign has received a boost by the announcement of (yet another) clinical study which indicates that there is<STRONG>no link</STRONG> between the triple MMR jab and autism or bowel disease.
My anger is not directed specifically at the Guardian because all the papers have been running similar stories recently.
I was annoyed because public health should not be a party political issue that needs reporting in this way. They are using the panic amongst parents as a stick to beat the government with. When in fact the press itself is causing the panic. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more they report on the panic; the parents paying for single jabs; the Wakefield paper; the autistic children paraded in front of the cameras by parents who after their 5 minutes of fame (and a quick buck) - the more parents worry --> panic --> press reporting on panic etc...
The government relies on the press to relay information to the general public. We need the press. But when they let down the public like this, it gets on my tits <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">. Public health is more important than their circulation numbers.
All the evidence supports MMR, but still the press will not back it. Why??
http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,11098,650212,00.html
Basically it is saying that the government's MMR campaign has received a boost by the announcement of (yet another) clinical study which indicates that there is<STRONG>no link</STRONG> between the triple MMR jab and autism or bowel disease.
My anger is not directed specifically at the Guardian because all the papers have been running similar stories recently.
I was annoyed because public health should not be a party political issue that needs reporting in this way. They are using the panic amongst parents as a stick to beat the government with. When in fact the press itself is causing the panic. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more they report on the panic; the parents paying for single jabs; the Wakefield paper; the autistic children paraded in front of the cameras by parents who after their 5 minutes of fame (and a quick buck) - the more parents worry --> panic --> press reporting on panic etc...
The government relies on the press to relay information to the general public. We need the press. But when they let down the public like this, it gets on my tits <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">. Public health is more important than their circulation numbers.
All the evidence supports MMR, but still the press will not back it. Why??
0
Comments
Would it be beyond the papers to simply try and sell more copies by creating panic
People do have minds of their own you know. The papers put out information, its down to the people that read them to make their own decisions.
The press wont back MMR because its a massive issue for many people...Whether these people are right or not is totally irrelevent. They have a right to have their issues addressed.
Its the whole chicken and egg thing innit..Do the papers sell because people are interested in the issue or do people become interested in the issue because its in the papers?
Personally I think its the first..People dont read articles that they arent interested in.
How can it not be a political issue when its being dealt with by the government to such a degree? Personally, ive seen precious few docs or scientists talking about this. Ive seen various MPs and the like passing on information from the docs. It appears to be a political issue because its being presented by politicians.
......because the papers are blowing it out of proportion. That's my point - they create the panic with their deliberately cynical and ambiguous reporting. </STRONG>
Maybe, but people get interested in the first place when a government policy id brought into doubt - the trouble is, there has been no conclusion to the Wakefield paper. He panicked a lot of people with his findings, the press jumped on it as a government failure, and the public got worried....and thus interested. But now all the medical evidence has been put forward, it has been ignored by the press, so parents still don't know who to believe. I don't see everyday public health as a political issue. It has some political relevance in that the government is ultimately responsible for the vaccine's distribution and use, and administration of public health. I agree that the politicians shouldn't be telling us to use MMR just for the sake of following a political line, but the advice comes from the chief medical officer - a doctor - and is simply relayed via politicians.
But because the popular press tends to find gossip more interesting than fact, people read the headline 'MMR Killer' and assume that the paper has got it right. They then exploit parents' emotions by running a sob story on an autistic child on the very next page. It's not helpful - and it makes it very difficult for ordinary folk to distinguish between fact and juicy story.
The press are the press. Theyve always been this way and theres nothing new in their reporting.
I guess it all comes down to how much faith people have in this government.
These things should be independent from the government.
I know the press is the press, but inaccurate or unnecessarily cynical reporting is one of my pet hates.
Of course it should. Its the governments job to implement these health policies. If people had faith in the government then they would trust them when they said this was safe and they would take heed of the medical evidence. The plain fact is that this government is viewed with suspicion and disgust and people just dont believe them when they say things, even if the evidence is there.
Would it be nice if everyone in the country could understand the medical and scientific opinions and statements? Yes it would be very nice, unfortunately most people dont and those people are left having to, as they see it, take the 'word' of the government.
and if the media didn't continually attempt to undermine confidence in Govts then there wouldn't be so much of a problem.
How often, in your lifetime, have you seen a story supporting any Govt beeing given as much prominance as one attacking it?
Two years ago I was a hospital bed manager. One day, due to a surgeon being ill, we had to cancel an operating session and some people didn't get their operations. The press contacted us two weeks later asking why we had sent ten cancer patients home in taxis rather than operate on them. We eventaully found out that they were taking about the patients on this particular list. And they ran the story.
The TRUTH was that there were six people affected, five were contact the day before they were due to come in and so were given alternative dates. Although we also got hold of the sixth, he refused to accept that the surgeon was ill and turned up anyway. We finally convinced him that he wouldn't get his op and sent him home in a taxi. He complained to the press. Of the six people NONE had cancer, and only the one who complained was being investigated for it. Incidentaly he got his op two days later.
But then that didn't fit the story.
Two weeks ago I opened a new theatre. Being designed on current standard it means we can operate on 1000 people more per year and is much more patient friendly. We arranged press coverage and were lucky to have BBC, Local TV and local media attending during the week. We had a celebrity open the unit and during her speech she made a statement about the closure of a local A&E which is scheduled within five years, much against local wishes (mine included!)
BBC did an excellently balanced report highlighting the benfits.
Local TV mentioned the extra patients, but pointed out that we have 1200 people more waiting this year, compared to last. They missed the fact that they wait 6 months instead of 18...
Local Press said 'Local Celebrity blasts proposed A7E closure as open mouthed managers look on'
Nice to see balanced reporting huh?
#####
These are just example I am aware of locally. I have also seen report in National News about our hospitals - and you will have seen Tonight with Trev Mc this week (that was one of mine!)
If the press don't give balanced reports, you will get people who only see one side. It's called propaganda...
So theyre not even allowed to be critical now? If a government is fucking up then I damn well want to hear about it. The papers dont try to undermine anything, they merely tell us what the government is up to. If the actions of the government undermines peoples confidence then how on earth is that anything to do with the press?
Doesnt make good news when everything is going well...Whats the point of reporting on it if its going the way you want? Headlines reading 'Alls well' or 'Government doing what we wanted' are totally pointless. We dont get stories on government doing its job because thats its job..News is news, it reports what happens. If nothing out of the usual is happening then it wont get mentioned.
Sorry but I must be missing something here. You say this celeb made a statement at the opening, was it a blast as the media said? If you agreed with her then whats the problem? There must be more to this mate cos that doesnt seem at all bad to me, cant even see any anti-NHS stuff in there at all.
I agree that their job is to identify areas where the Govt fail, but is that what they are doing? Would the Mail or Telegraph ever say anything good about a Labout Govt? Would the Sun ever say anything good about Europe? In both cases I think we know the answer - no. This is because they already have their agenda and they will report what fits that agenda. This may not fit reality.
Is the MMR 'scandal' about healthcare, or is it being used as a opportunity to attack a Govt? There is a difference.
Well I cant comment on the Telegraph but ive read several stories in the Mail which state their support for the government in a certain action.
Obviously papers have an agenda...Nobody is arrogant enough to claim to be neutral(except for the BBC :mad <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">. Papers, as with everyone in the entire world, is biased toward their preconceived ideas..That doesnt matter, its up to people to be able to sift through the bullshit bias that the papers include in their articles.
The point I am making is about balanced reporting. There are two stories there.
One is about closing an A&E unit. I agreed with her comments (not so much a blast and expressing her opinion). This is a 'negative' story. This is about having a go at the NHS.
The other is about how an area of healthcare has been improved, and more people will get operatins, (and quicker than ever). This is a good story about how the NHS delivers and improves.
Both deserved reporting.
One agency covered both. One agecy was more interested in the number of patients on the waiting list (and took the opportunity to have a go) and one was only interested in the negative story...oh and as one of the managers I have to say that there were no 'open mouths' - but why report the facts?
I can accept what was said because I know the facts, but the local residents don't. SO what image did they get?
Think about all the articles that arent published because they arent PC.
I hate the press as much as the next guy but I realise theres nothing we can do about it, even if there were something we could do, I believe we shouldnt do it.
Try reading the Independent, or (horror of horrors) the Guardian. Even the Hello!graph and the Times are better than the Mail.
Which isn't.
<STRONG>
What you have done there is pick two newspapers who report from a liberal standpoint. They are two of the most PC papers out.
Just because they subscribe to your viewpoint doesn't make them unbiased, it just means that you agree with their bias.
You are actually better off reading the paper you disagree with, at least then you get to see the opposing standpoint...
Also, I actually suggested the Times and the Telegraph as alternatives if you don't agree with a liberal bias. I think people should read intelligent, reasoned papers; not the complete shite published in the tabloids.
totally agree with you there. I am fairly left wing but read The Times, a paper with a tory slant. It helps put things into perspective.
I strongly disagree; the tabloids pick an opinion to take on an issue and relentlessly push it, refusing to accept that other opinions may be cogent and in many cases outrightly condemning those who differ in their views. The broardsheets (well, the one of I have the most experience of, the Guardian, does; I assume others do too) hold discussion on an issue in which they simply choose to support a particular side, and their story reporting tends to be far less biased than tabloid. They keep their overt bias for comment and letter sections. The Guardian, I know, also often has articles written by right-wing, in some cases far right, authors, but they tend to be respected on the issue they are discussing, and are given a fair hearing. They're not just tabloid nutcases.
You're right there, the tabloids are full of propaganda to scare and disgust, rarely giving two sides of an argument. The recent MMR being a good example.
The broadsheets tend to be a lot more open with it.
All I meant was that it is impossible to get news without bias. The broadsheets go into more depth than the tabloids and so, yes, they do allow their readership to formulate individual opinions.
But if they write deliberately misleading or ambiguous articles which are there to embarass the government without factual basis, then they are all as bad as one another. And the example I used showed that the Guardian is guilty of this.
Maybe not but as that was the paper he used in his post, thats the one I spoke of. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
For the record, and we have had these discussions before, I read several papers each day which include both the Daily Mail and the Guardian.
We're not all that bad...though I would say that, I'm a journalist <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
All they do is report the facts, that's it.
Goto their website, or get a mobile phone with wap on it.